Hey all sorry about the stupid psych survey ads. I deleted that journal's first post, they redid it, so I banned it and added the rule that spambots aren't allowed.
Hamid Karzai, Prime Minister of Afghanistan just rushed a bill through the Afghan parliament that would legalize marital rape://www.bust.com/blog/2009/03/31/afghanistan-legalizes-marital-rape.html
I'm thinking of doing some sort of photo theme(s) and/or scavenger hunt.
Vermont Senate panel approves gay marriage bill
By DAVE GRAM, Associated Press Writer Dave Gram, Associated Press Writer Fri Mar 20, 5:15 pm ET
MONTPELIER, Vt. –
A state Senate committee unanimously approved a gay marriage bill on Friday, moving Vermont one step closer to allowing same-sex couples to legally wed.
"It provides ... gay and lesbian couples the same rights that I have as a married heterosexual," said Sen. John Campbell, vice chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chief sponsor of the bill.
The measure would replace Vermont's first-in-the-nation civil unions law with one that allows marriage of same-sex partners beginning Sept. 1.
The committee's vote ended an intense week highlighted by a public hearing Wednesday night in which more than 500 people swarmed the Statehouse to speak for and against allowing same-sex marriages.
If approved, Vermont would join Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only U.S. states that allow gays and lesbians to marry.
Civil unions, which confer some rights similar to marriage, would still be recognized but no longer granted after Sept. 1.
Campbell said marriage is an improvement over civil unions both substantively and as a matter of wording.
On the first score, he said, marriage is more widely legally recognized than civil unions. If a couple from Vermont got into an accident in Kansas, a spouse likely would have a stronger claim to hospital visitation rights if they were married than if they were in a civil union, he said.
Semantically, Campbell argued that if there were no difference, opponents of same-sex marriage would not be so vehement that the term marriage should apply only to heterosexual unions. "Children should be able to say to their friends that their parents are married, and not have to explain what a civil union is," he added.
Both Houses, under Democratic control, are expected to pass the measure. The Senate is taking the lead and is expected to debate the bill next week.
Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, has said he opposes the bill but has declined to say whether he will veto it if it reaches his desk.
"I've made my position quite clear that I believe marriage is and ought to remain the union of a man and a woman, that our civil unions law affords equality of opportunities and rights under state law and that that should suffice," the governor said on the eve of the Senate committee vote.
The bill would exempt members of the clergy from performing same-sex marriages if their faiths forbid such unions, and would bar lawsuits prompted by such refusals.
The exemption would not extend to justices of the peace and other public officials who perform civil marriages but who might object to officiating at same-sex unions. Those people are agents of the government and are barred by law from discriminating based on sexual orientation, Campbell said.
Vermont in 2000 became the first state in the country to pass a civil unions law, which grants many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. But gay marriage advocates have argued since then that the law does not go far enough. California, New Jersey and New Hampshire also permit civil unions.
Friday's committee vote followed the panel's rejection of an amendment proposed by Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, that would have put the gay marriage question to a statewide referendum next March. After the amendment was defeated, Mullin joined his colleagues in voting 5-0 for the bill.
The committee's action drew praise from a leader of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, one of the leading organizations supporting gay marriage in the state, and condemnation from a leader of the anti-gay-marriage Marriage Advisory Council.
"The committee was attentive throughout the week. They heard a wide range of witnesses on a wide range of issues, and I think, ultimately, they did the right thing," said Beth Robinson, a Middlebury lawyer and chairwoman of the Freedom to Marry Task Force.
Stephen Cable, president of the group Vermont Renewal, an organization that opposes same-sex marriage, said the civil unions law and the possible passage of gay marriage bill shows the state "no longer seeks to promote that each child have a mother and a father. And I think that's shameful and very sad."
1)What do you think about blogging being considered a "publication" in a legal sense?
Does it bother you that your blog-writing can be considered libelous, and do you
think there should be a separate legal standard for blogging and online writing
compared to physical publication or publication to newspapers or magazines?
Have you ever witnessed or encountered drama or unforeseen consequences
stemming from things written in blogs?
If my blog can be considered libelous...I'm in trouble.
I know that my own person blog has created a lot of drama. Its where I clear my head. I tend to be very very open about a lot of things. I've been ridiculed for it. Chastised. I've actually had a couple people stop talking to me altoghether. Apparently I can say whatever I want, just as long as they never have to know about it, or as long as its something they like.
I don't have a tendency to hold my tongue, and because of that, a lot of what I say, no matter what it is, gets held against me by some person or another. And for the government to jump on that bandwagon as well? No thanks.
Your blog is no different than your virtual diary. I think if you're blogging for, say, Entertainment Weekly, fine. Maybe there should be guidelines, etc. But seriously, my personal blog? Give me a break.